1. 1 TIPC based TML for ForCES Protocol Jon Maloy Shuchi Chawla Hormuzd Khosravi Furquan Ansari Jamal Hadi Salim 63 rd IETF Meeting, Paris

2. 2 Topics  Similarities/Differences to TCP/IP TML  Control/Data Channel Model  Address Mapping  Multicast  Fulfilling Requirements

3. 3  Similar, multiplex/demultiplex model  No TML encapsulation  Control channel based on reliable TIPC connection  Data channel based on “best effort” TIPC connection – No “transport-on-transport” problem  Limited to closed LAN networks (one chassis) for now  Performance  No configuration required – FE/CE ids map directly to TIPC addresses  Neighbour detection for free Comparison to TCP based TML

4. 4 Connection/Channel Model FE Object CE Object FE CE TIPC LFB 1LFB 2 FB XFB Y Connectionless SOCK_RDM TIPC “Best Effort” Connection” as Data Channel Reliable Connection” as Control Channel

5. 5 Address Mapping FE 5 CE 8 TIPC TIPC API TML API tml_init(ce=8) bind(CE_CTRL_TYPE,8) CE Object TIPC API TML API tml_open(ce=8) connect(CE_CTRL_TYPE,8) FE Object

6. 6 Address Mapping FE Object CE Object FE 5 CE 8 TIPC LFB 6,2 FB Y send_ctrl(fe = 5,lfb_type=6, lfb_inst = 2)

7. 7 Address Mapping, Multicast FE 5 CE 8 TIPC TIPC API TML API CE Object TIPC API TML API FE Object bind(mcid,5) tml_join(mcid)

8. 8 Address Mapping,Multicast FE Object CE Object FE 5 CE 8 TIPC LFB 6,2 FB Y send_mc(mcid=4,lfb_type=6, lfb_inst = 2)

9. 9  Reliability – Reliable transport in all modes – Can be made unreliable per socket/direction  Security – Only secure within closed networks. – No explicit authentication/encryption support yet, but planned – Not IP-based, no router will forward TIPC messages!!  Congestion Control – At three levels: Connection/Transport, Signalling Link and Carrier level – Will give feedback to PL layer if connection is broken  Multicast/Broadcast – Supported Fulfilling Requirements(1)

10. 10  Timeliness – Immediate delivery (No Nagle algorithm) – Inter-node delivery time in the order of 100 microseconds  HA Considerations – L2 link failure detection and failover handled transparently for user – Connection abortion with error code if no redundant carrier available – Peer node failure detection after 0.5-1.5 seconds  Encapsulation – No TML layer encapsulaton  Priorities – Supports 4 message importance priorities, determining congestion levels and abort/rejection levels Fulfilling Requirements(2)

11. 11 Questions ???

12. 12 To Consider… FE 5 CE 8 FB Y TIPC API FORCES API forces_bind(lfb_type=6,inst=2) bind(6,2) LFB 6,2 FE Object CE Object TIPC

13. 13 To Consider… FE 5 CE 8 TIPC API FORCES API FB Y TIPC API FORCES API forces_recv() recvfrom() LFB 6,2 FE Object CE Object TIPC forces_send ([fe = 5,] lfb_type=6,inst = 2 ) sendto([5],6,2) Control traffic: Reliable connectionless (SOCK_RDM) Data traffic: Best Effort connectionless (SOCK_DGRAM)

14. 14  Should generic PL layer according to spec really be mandatory ??  A service description of the ForCES communication service may be sufficient, and less restrictive To Consider…